I've been brewing a quick fix for a country overrun with lobbyists, and I think I've finally settled on it: pay politicians a lot more.
I know what you're thinking: "They already make way too much money." You're wrong. In comparison to the middle class, they make a lot of money, but it's not off the taxpayer dollar--it's off those of lobbyists. Why does this matter? Consider: the President of the United States (POTUS) makes only $400,000 per year off taxpayers...and that's to be the most powerful elected official in the world. That's pitiful in comparison to the position: a Fortune 500 CEO can make a hundred times that. On top of that, they have to pay for their own re-election campaign, so they're inevitably chained to campaign contributions from such evils as SuperPACs. The problem is doubly compounded when it comes to the similarly-pitiful salaries of congressmen: the most they make is $223,500--a sum landed by the Speaker of the House.
To put this in perspective, you could buy the combined salaries of every single senator for only $20 million dollars. That's pocket change for a companies like BP, whose annual revenue is $297 billion; GE, whose annual revenue is $150.211 billion; or even General Motors, whose annual revenue is $135.592 billion. They can risk the $20 million because even if they lose it, it doesn't take even a fraction off their revenues.
So to me, the solution is simple: give every single one of them raises. Bring Senate and House salaries up to $1-2 million dollars per year, and the POTUS's salary up to $10 million dollars per year. The net cost to the taxpayer ends up only being a couple billion dollars, and you'll shortly see why this is a hell of a deal:
One of the main benefits is that it frees the politicians to vote their conscience and retire at the end of their terms, if they so desire, without needing a golden parachute. On top of that, they then have significant disincentive to get kicked out of office prematurely: why spoil something you're guaranteed to bank on? Also, why risk pissing off voters if you can get a second term and instead retire at the end of it?
...but by far the most important benefit is much more subtle: raising their salaries that much makes it so that it takes a significant chunk out of anyone--company or individual--who tries to bribe politicians in bulk. For individuals, it becomes nearly impossible for a single person to bribe the entire government with their stash of personal wealth. For companies, it becomes an unacceptably risky investment; therefore, it's extremely difficult to justify to shareholders. It's risky because it's illegal to bribe politicians outright, so you must rely on the politician keeping their word or otherwise being bound to their source of revenue--the "campaign contribution." At the same time, it's difficult to justify to shareholders, because the money that would be involved--billions--is naturally better spent on R&D, which has a better rate of success when it comes to keeping a company profitable.
And there you have it: the answer to most of our current problems related to government stagnation and corruption. It's counterintuitive that the end-all-be-all solution involves spending more money on the people who seem to be screwing things up, but think of it like this instead: we'd be bribing our politicians to not take bribes.
Pretty cool, huh? :)
